August 29, 2011

Here's something I wrote in early July, a week after the story first appeared in the media:

Judges are supposed to work out their human frailty problems outside of public view. Which is why the "chokehold" incident should never have been leaked to the press. That's why my writing on the subject has focused on who leaked and why. I would like to think that it was someone other than one of the Justices, someone who didn't understand the stakes for the prestige of the court. If it was, in fact, one of the Justices, what was the reason? Why would you damage the reputation of the court like that instead of working on resolving the problems quietly internally?

And don't tell me: Because choking somebody is a serious crime! If it were that straightforward, the choker should have been arrested — or the charge should have come to light — shortly after the incident. Instead, a politically partisan journalist broke the story 12 days later. Someone made a decision to go public through him, and that makes it look like a political tactic. Is that someone a supreme court justice? Intolerable.

Now, the investigation has taken place and we have had the opportunity to read the entire file. It does not reveal who went to the media — to Bill Lueders of WisconsinWatch.org — with the story. It does reveal that the story originally published by Lueders was shamefully inadequate, because it said only that Justice Prosser "allegedly grabbed fellow Justice Ann Walsh Bradley around the neck in an argument." It had nothing about Bradley's initiating the physical encounter by "charging at" him and suddenly and deliberately getting right in his personal space, possibly with a fist in his face. Either Lueders left out Bradley's initial physical aggression, or he received the story in that inadequate form. So who talked to Lueders, and did that person tell him the story with crucial details omitted to cast Prosser in the worst possible light?

Another thing we know from the investigation file is that, 2 days after the incident, Justice Bradley gave a carefully prepared speech to the assembled justices in which she framed — in her own terms — a problem that needed to be solved. Portraying Prosser as the workplace bully, she stated: "If I cannot get any assurance from you, the court, that this problem is going to be addressed, then I will go to the outside and take other means." Since she did not get that assurance, the record gives support to the inference that it was Justice Bradley who went to the media. The investigators did not ask her if she made good on her threat and took "other means" by going public through Bill Lueders, perhaps because it did not relate to whether a crime was committed, but I think the public deserves to know.

On page 43 of the investigative file, Justice Prosser seems to imply that it was Justice Bradley who leaked the story (and leaked it in a damagingly incomplete form):

Justice Prosser said when there is a charge made by a woman that a man choked you, and you leak it out to the press allover the world, and that man is on the WI Supreme Court, "You are doing absolute maximum damage to a public figure that you can do". Justice Prosser said he did not feel Justice Bradley was telling the truth because if she were, then she would have to say how she charged at him.

It was not damaging solely to Prosser. It was damaging to the entire court and to the viability of the rule of law in Wisconsin. As I wrote, back in early July: "Why would you damage the reputation of the court like that instead of working on resolving the problems quietly internally?" I'm still trying to understand how anyone who cared about the prestige and legitimacy of the Wisconsin Supreme Court would take this matter public.

But we do know, from the text of Justice Bradley's own speech, that she thought the threat of going public was something she could use for her own purposes to compel the other justices to act as though the problem was Prosser and Prosser alone. Frame it my way, don't blame me at all, see me only as the victim, or I will take it upon myself to devastate this court's reputation. Even if Bradley was not the one who leaked to Lueders — in the all-Prosser's-fault form — that was, to put it mildly, injudicious and self-serving.

And I still have the question I had on July 3d:

Someone made a decision to go public through [the politically partisan journalist Bill Lueders], and that makes it look like a political tactic. Is that someone a supreme court justice?

I said it then, and I can't see any reason to change my opinion: Intolerable.

Althouse look at Garage, look the Singa-long folks, look at the city banning Republicans from the Labour Day Parade. They aren’t worried about “reputations” they are worried about Victory, power, the Old Ways of Doing Things…they are like Southerners watching their Jim Crow South slip away…this isn’t rational, it’s emotional!

Bottom-Line: I bet Bradley, seeking to destroy Prosser and in turn, over-turn the actions of Walker, the General Assembly, and then the court…and she or her clerk didn’t care one whit about what it “looked like” only that this was an opportunity to be grasped to snatch victory from the jaws of defeat.

This is a woman used to using threats to get her way. I am glad she didn't succeed as it shows that other judges on the WISC won't be bullied into complying with her passive/aggressive attempts at coersion and manipulation. Even her BFF, Abrahamson

My guess is that the leaker is Mark Bradley. This to give Ann Walsh Bradley the ability truthfully assert that she did not leak.There are only a few other possible sources. Abrahamson, Bradley's clerk, and maybe, a long shot, the WI Supreme Court HR rep (name is not in my memory banks) who seems to have adopted the Bradley narrative as truthful.

Of course it was Bradley, likely through of her minions. What about her makes you think she would give a rats ass about "the prestige and legitimacy of the Wisconsin Supreme Court. She thinks the requirement for that is for her and Shirley to be in the majority.

I'm still wondering who filed the complaint with the WI Judicial Commission, and when.From her testimony to investigators, it wasn't Bradley.My first inclination was to assign that to Prosser, but maybe it was one of the other justices - maybe Patience Roggensack is tired of the drama.

He phrased the accusation in the most ridiculous and over-the-top manner possible, so no matter what, the investigation would reveal he was the victim of an insane smear, furthering the idea the left in WI is lawless and anti-democratic (the original point here is to overwhelm the results of elections).

He's successfully made Bradley look like a twerp, a psycho, and willing to screw over her state and justice system for selfish reasons.

OK... so Prosser didn't do it and Bradley and pals are actually so stupid and corrupt they didn't realize this could backfire. But my explanation is more interesting on TV.

>>I'm still wondering who filed the complaint with the WI Judicial Commission, and when.From her testimony to investigators, it wasn't Bradley.My first inclination was to assign that to Prosser, but maybe it was one of the other justices - maybe Patience Roggensack is tired of the drama.<<

"cboldt said...I'm still wondering who filed the complaint with the WI Judicial Commission, and when.From her testimony to investigators, it wasn't Bradley.My first inclination was to assign that to Prosser, but maybe it was one of the other justices - maybe Patience Roggensack is tired of the drama."

Bradley needs to resign. She is an embarrassment to the WI Supreme Court. Of course, leftists have no shame, so that won't happen. In 4 years, she'll be subject to a judicial election. Hopefully, the people of Wisconsin will boot this hack leftist off the court.

(The Uncredentialed, Crypto Jew) Prosser is the only witness on record claiming Bradley "charged" Prosser, at least as I far as I can tell. Unless you have the link to the report

And yet, Prosser isn’t in jail, or treatment, nor has he had to “Apologize.” It’s “The Dog that Didn’t Bark” Garage…you lost, please move on. It’s sad and embarrassing to watch you continue on like this. NO ONE believes that there is any evidence of choking or wrong-doing on Prosser’s part…and whilst we are not given a “Yhwh’s-Eye” view of this, it becomes increasingly clear that there is NO evidence to support your hopes, otherwise this evidence would have come to light.

And yes, I believe there are witnesses to Bradley’s “advance/charge on Prosser, just from what I recall. You are becoming one of those tiresome anti-war sorts who keep talking about “Bush Lied” and have to be continually reminded of what “lie” means and that the AUMF did not simply focus on WMD’s. But all the time they repeat the lie, hoping that they can get away with it.

Portraying Prosser as the workplace bully, she stated: "If I cannot get any assurance from you, the court, that this problem is going to be addressed, then I will go to the outside and take other means."

So you take Prosser's word over Miss Bradley's here, notwithstanding Prosser's documented record of being abusive to female judges (ie calling Kloppenberg a bitch)?? And you don't think's there a problem with a male--5-9 180 or so--physically confronting a petite female ((Bradley's like 5-3, approx. 150 lbs)?? You're the one stooping to politics, Miss A instead of putting on the old blindfold.

Regardless of whether there was a chokehold or not, Prosser did have some contact with her (looks nearly like a punch)--the act of a rogue and miscreant. Prosser however has a great deal of influence. He probably ordered the DA to squelch the case.

-- Prosser is the only witness on record claiming Bradley "charged" Prosser, at least as I far as I can tell. Unless you have the link to the report? --The testimony of the justices has been linked at least indirectly, see this blogpost from Aug 27, that you commented on.Gableman said "rushing," and Roggensack said "charged at him with her fist in the air."

They had an investigation. It concluded Bradley's description was wrong. That's the basis for doubting her. Prosser's description of the event has turned out to be accurate, so that's the basis for buying it.

You are ignoring a lot of facts and jumping up and down on one that isn't well established.

Was Prosser justified to call someone a bitch? I'm guessing he was. So it probably wasn't abuse.

Let's think about the environment he works in. Democrats are willing to ruin the court's reputation and hate the results of elections, so go out of their way to screw with policies and even remove jurists from the bench.

Prosser is dealing with some real psychos.

"Prosser did have some contact with her (looks nearly like a punch)--the act of a rogue and miscreant."

He was attacked by a much larger and younger person, and defended himself with the minimum force necessary. the attacker has been caught lying about it, and instantly opted to do so.

The idea Prosser is a miscreant is sexist. Just because he has a penis doesn't give women the right to physically batter him.

This dishonesty is becoming commonplace in Wisconsin politics, and it's backfiring badly. You guys think it's time to ramp up the lies and screaming and violent threats and fascism, but if you had any sense you would apologize and promise to learn your lesson.

"But he is the only witness that claims this. Did everyone else miss that part?"

Garage is lying. It's as simple as that. I've seen him corrected on this, so he knows he's lying. He's one of those stubborn trolls who will repeat a lie over and over, hoping he makes a dent in the truth.

(The Uncredentialed, Crypto Jew) Prosser however has a great deal of influence. He probably ordered the DA to squelch the case

Yeah unlike JUSTICE BRADLEY, who had NO “influence with the DA”…my Yhwh you’re slow today….oh and “ordered” the DA? Sorry Small Pathetic Voice, the WISC isn’t in the DA’s Chain of Command….you and Garage need to let this go, and just cut your losses.

On a happier topic, have you cracked 400 pounds on the bench press yet? And I spoke to my Zionist-Imperialist banker friends. They have quite the file on you? They’d like come by your place and have a “meeting” when would be most convenient for you?

"golly Miss Bradley, all of 5-3 and under 150 lbs and poor Prosser the TP hero (bout 6 inches taller and 50 lbs heavier) feared for his very life!! So he then slugs her. "

I thought Prosser was smaller than Bradley. I know he's a lot older. He's about 70 years old.

The idea it's OK to attack old men is sick. You actually are angry someone wasn't prosecuted for a battery that never occurred, at the same time you're mocking the idea of prosecuting a battery that did occur! It's as though justice has no meaning to you... only politics.

And no, he didn't slug her, but I realize you know that and are lying for propaganda effect.

Once again, liberal democrats used violence, and attempt to screw over the innocent victim. Wisconsin has a choice to reject democrats for a few years and teach them a lesson.

"STFU!!!" "You are trash if you don't agree with democrats on everything!!!"

I know. You would take all my rights away and give undue rights to the corrupt. All in the name of your political views.

Wisconsin has started to figure it out. Good folks don't want psychos who make the arguments you do to have control over their lives.

I'd rather have Prosser ruling on the law than Bradley, even on issues with little political significance.

We need professionals who care about the big picture. For example, professionals who won't trash the image of the court system for a short term stab at politics. Prosser consistently held his tongue on this issue, when lesser men would have unleashed a righteous condemnation. Even today, he's mild about it.

We need people like that. Madison is too full of people who scream 'STFU TRASH!!!!' because they are so insecure in the face of a conservative.

Give it up Garage, no Prosser wasn’t the only witness, nor did he only talk about what happened, there were SEVERAL Supreme Court Justices present…and NO, not one of them talks about Prosser choking anyone, and several mention, IIRC, that Bradley charged Prosser.

"I said, at least as far as I can tell, and then asked for the link to the testimony. That stuck out to me, and I'll be happy to correct the record."

And you're lying. There's no point correcting you twenty times when you're going to come back tomorrow and lie again. You already were corrected. That's why you have no reputation for honesty. I'm not going to bother playing your game. The fact you're wrong is well established.

I think Americans get turned off by ostentatious displays of piety. Between the two, in this regard, Bradley really screwed the pooch. She's beyond the point of redemption. She's a clown. This can't possibly help her in her work as a judge.

Furthermore, sources unanimously believed that it was Shirley Abrahamson who has been the impetus behind the story, managing the press operation from behind the scenes. Justices had been working together regularly since the incident without any signs of rancor until Abrahamson decided to make this an issue, sources believe.

Don't know what to make of this, but came across that quote yesterday when researching another comment. Published two months ago.

nah- he was just reacting as a protective husband. He was told she was physcially hurt and his wife was crying. He wanted her safe and out of the situation and urged a restraining order. Publicity wasn't going to help with saftey. And he knew that his wife would be one of the people blamed for leaking if the story got out. They didn't even tell their daughter until the story was public.

The law clerks knew about this. A law clerk told her boyfriend. Don't know who leaked, but wouldn't be surprised if it came from one of the young clerks or a friend of one of the clerks.

I thought Prosser was smaller than Bradley. I know he's a lot older. He's about 70 years old.

You're wrong. That was one of Rush Limbozo's lies. He's older but Bradley is petite--much smaller. They wanted to create this image of Bradley as some vicious bull dyke-- pure shit, like all of Limblow's drivel. Prosser assaulted her... and walked.

The old proverb about it not being the crime but the cover up certainly doesn't apply in this case. Here it's not the crime but the uncovering that seems sordid....Madeline Albright should not wear a see through negligee, and the office politics of the Wisconsin bench should remain a shrouded mystery.....The more the participants worry this issue the more self involved, self indulgent, and self important they appear. This is a classic no win situation for everyone involved.

"I said it then, and I can't see any reason to change my opinion: Intolerable."

Unfortunately, the only consequence I've seen is its denunciation in places like this. That's pretty much the same as 'tolerated as business as usual' by the wider world.

Both the WI Supreme Court, in particular, and the concept of justice through law in general, have been badly damaged by the buffoonery of the current incumbents in high judicial office in WI. But neither the problem nor the solution turns on figuring out whether the leaker was Justice Bradley, her husband, or someone else in the court. The problem is that, in a time when courts are asked to decide divisive issues of social policy, the judiciary has become and is increasingly seen as a political institution. Yet the appellate judges who have the most to say on those cases haven't found a way to frame the issues, or put in place the institutional protocols, to control the divisiveness that political disputes always brings.

Focusing on Bradley (or Prosser) as the problem is ridiculous. Perhaps either or both of them lacks the self-control to avoid creating or exploiting the flare-ups of temper and emotion that are always part of high-stakes political disputes. But solutions of the 'get rid of Bradley (or Prosser)' sort are just markers -- a way of saying that the speaker prefers conservative (or liberal) outcomes and wants to see that team prevail in this dispute.

The judiciary like the larger political culture is divided. What's needed is a way to make judicial institutions work despite those divides, and in a way that is convincingly principled rather than merely partisan. Doesn't seem to be happening in WI. I'm not optimistic they'll find a way to make it work.

The judiciary like the larger political culture is divided. What's needed is a way to make judicial institutions work despite those divides, and in a way that is convincingly principled rather than merely partisan.

"The evidence strongly suggests that Prosser assaulted Miss Bradley, a small female. She could be a communist--but that doesn't f-ing matter as far as as the crime goes."

As I said, you will continue repeating a lie over and over and over.

It's very clear that the evidence shows the exact opposite of what you claimed, which is why you can't point to evidence. You want to continue repeating the lie.

Meanwhile, you scream that Rush Limbaugh is blanketing the planet with propaganda. I guess you're projecting your insecurity onto the right in this case, since you realize you're the one repeating lies.

It won't work. Maybe ten years ago it would. Surely twenty. Not today. Information can't be controlled anymore, so the voters know quite surely that democrats are dishonest in their pursuit of progressive redistribution.

Some like that. They are encouraged by lawlessness because they think the ends justify the means. Most do not like it. That's why Madison is wilder and the rest of the state is turning redder and redder.

You think you can just lie your way out of this? I think a better solution would be for you to apologize for your role in smearing innocent people for the sake of that violent psycho, Bradley.

(The Uncredentialed, Crypto Jew) Link? Anyone? Where is the testimony other than Prosser stating Bradley "charged

Ok, Mr Loose Change..stop asking questions, and demonstrate YOUR case…that Bradley did not advance on Prosser, and that she did NOT raise her fists, as witnesses testified…prove or at least give evidence, that Prosser advanced on her and/or choked her….Several Justice reported that Bradley advanced on Prosser…people point it out to you DAILY…you keep trying to trot out the Big Lie, that it didn’t happen.

-- Link? Anyone? Where is the testimony other than Prosser stating Bradley "charged"? --It's been given to you three times now, not to mention that you were commenting on a thread that had the link a couple days ago.

Whoever said you were a decent person is wrong. You are not a decent person.

" Link? Anyone? Where is the testimony other than Prosser stating Bradley "charged"?"

Garage, you're the one making the weird assertion we all know is wrong. You're making it over and over despite being corrected by quotes of other witnesses.

YOU provide the link to back up your claim. Where did you get the information behind your assertion?

Show your work.

Clearly you and a few other trolls just want to derail every single conversation by asserting something you know to be a lie, and demanding people prove you wrong. And when they do, you just repeat the lie again and demand proof again, laughing at how angry it makes honest people.

So no one gets to talk about anything but your repeated smear of an innocent person.

Not sure we will ever get to the bottom of this Rashomon-like case including an understanding of the physical details. If Bradley was flailing her fists or fist in Prosser face, rather than just pointing towards the door with her left hand as some have claimed, why was Prosser reflex not to push the hand away from his face? By not defending himself with a block, , but instead reaching for Bradley's neck would mean he would reach forward into her fist. But this did not happen according to all accounts leaving me to conclude that there was no fist in Prosser's face and indeed Bradley was pointing towards the door. This leads me to believe that perhaps Prossers' real reflex, placing his hands on, or around Bradley neck sprung from another reflect-- perhaps to choke off her speech?. That action and his claim that he didn't know where his thumbs were--the missing thumbs claim which ignores that they are attached to his hand and just might have been over her throat while he was feeling the warmth of Bradley's neck, makes me question his motives and testimony. After all those of us in Wisconsin have witnessed Prosser's temper and reflexive choke hold he took on the Fox News mic-- perhaps to silence that reporter? There seems to be a pattern here, but I do not know if it is criminal at this point-- just bizarre.

(The Uncredentialed, Crypto Jew) That action and his claim that he didn't know where his thumbs were--the missing thumbs claim which ignores that they are attached to his hand and just might have been over her throat while he was feeling the warmth of Bradley's neck, makes me question his motives and testimony. After all those of us in Wisconsin have witnessed Prosser's temper and reflexive choke hold he took on the Fox News mic-- perhaps to silence that reporter? There seems to be a pattern here, but I do not know if it is criminal at this point-- just bizarre

R-V you said that before…now you’re just re-posting you old trash….he was trying to choke off her words, right…nice psycho-babble, there…stick with the Environmental Engineering.

There's no "Rashomon" effect. It's one violent little Progressive bitch disputing the account of everybody else and trying to destroy Prosser in the process. There's only one way to look at that, the foul scrunt should step down immediately.

"The judiciary like the larger political culture is divided. What's needed is a way to make judicial institutions work despite those divides, and in a way that is convincingly principled rather than merely partisan. Doesn't seem to be happening in WI. I'm not optimistic they'll find a way to make it work."

I agree.

This is exactly what WI has lost. It's not unusual for societies to have real divisions, but what has gone wrong in WI is that the state has lost its ability to resolve matters in a way that goes beyond partisanship.

This is exactly what WI has lost. It's not unusual for societies to have real divisions, but what has gone wrong in WI is that the state has lost its ability to resolve matters in a way that goes beyond partisanship

Why is it partisan? Why can't it be simple principle disagreements? What does it have to do with party?

"from my point of view, are deliberately engaged in bad faith discussion."

Of course it's bad faith. They are on the defensive now, after the attack failed. They are no longer attempting to convince anyone. They are attempting to derail the post-analysis.

This 'oh, am I wrong? show me" is not intended to persuade because it can't. It's just intended to get everyone's focus. J's attacks are a somewhat dumber version of the same thing.

They've given up trying to win. They know Bradley is a psychopath and Prosser is an innocent man.

They probably also know that this issue will hang like an albatross over Wisconsin in 2012. This case alone will cost the democrats tens of millions of dollars as they attempt to hold onto the electoral votes. They may not even be able to. WI is a purple state. Bradley's selfish stupidity has backfired.

It's terrible for Prosser, but it's good for Wisconsin to understand what democrats have become. They are no longer the midwest moderates, and haven't been that way for a long time. They are extremists who cannot be reasoned with, fighting only for power and money.

If you care about the justice system, your children, or this country, you'll reflect on Bradley and Madison's democrats with a vote for Republicans.

"Prosser is the only witness on record claiming Bradley "charged" Prosser, at least as I far as I can tell. Unless you have the link to the report?"

The post links to the report. Prosser said "charged." Roggensack used the word in the June 15th meeting, and Bradley responded by saying she didn't touch him (that is, she didn't deny the "charge" assertion). Others who didn't use the word "charge," including Bradley, all have Bradley rushing at Prosser suddenly. There's minor disagreement about Bradley's speed. Bradley herself emphasized her intention in coming at Prosser to exercise control and domination. What is the best verb for that? She, by her own statement, meant to intimidate him by physically getting in his space. I selected "charged" as the verb here (and put it in quotes) because it summarizes what they all said. You cannot read the file, with all the corroboration, and have a picture of her somehow ambling amiably toward Prosser. It was quick, angry, and intended to alarm the 68-year-old man. That's clearly established by file.

I wonder if all this drama is an example of what happens when women get into positions of power.

I think it's more likely. I don't think you get all these hystrionics from men. But put some women into positions of high leadership, and let some time pass so that the women don't feel they have to behave like men in order to justify their presence in a formerly all-male environment, and eventually their inner woman comes out. Over-emotional, cliqueish, etc.

Some of these women on the court seem to behave like grade school children. That's not excusing Prosser's temper, but maybe he's just got the normal frustrations of a man trying to work with a female manager behaving like a schoolgirl at this level.

"I wonder if all this drama is an example of what happens when women get into positions of power."

SOME women. Not all. Some women are very professional.

One problem with the PC culture is that it makes it more difficult to directly face the issue of catty and passive aggressive women with power. They are not all women in power, and discriminating against them is a great thing to do which benefits everyone, but mostly benefits women who aren't catty. In my experience, they are so threatening to the less able women that they get the worst of the BS.

Is it possible that democrats realize the political winds will continue shifting away from them, so screwing the reputation of courts and legislatures is actually cost-free in their eyes? They are only screwing the reputation of a conservative judiciary, in their eyes, so who cares?

Maybe she did not make the call. Do you think Obama picks up the phone when he wants something leaked? But it's her story and she wanted it out. She assured it would get out by telling multiple people about it quickly.

More likely it was Bradley's husband, who seems to be her primary enabler. He suggested a restraining order.

Could it have come from Madison police? Possibly.

We will never know. Even if the dime dropper is identified, he/she will lie and deny it.

No matter who it was, it was Bradley's decision--indeed her plan--to go public. That she farmed out the execution of the plan is irrelevant (though it gives her deniability too.)

Not that anything you're saying is true, but it's no surprise you are a bigot against gay folks. Every radical democrat I've ever met is willing to be a total bigot against anyone who doesn't obey democrats.

Here is the useful Wikipedia definition of the Invincible Ignorance Fallacy:

The invincible ignorance fallacy[1] is a deductive fallacy of circularity where the person in question simply refuses to believe the argument, ignoring any evidence given. It is not so much a fallacious tactic in argument as it is a refusal to argue in the proper sense of the word, the method instead being to make assertions with no consideration of objections.

It fits Garage's style perfectly. Don't respond to him. His purpose is to pollute threads and distract. He thinks it's fun to make people find links for information that he already knows and knows where to find.

It is tempting to respond, because he is easy to refute and no one want to leave his lies unchallenged. But it is pointless, he knows he is lying. He knows he is wrong on the facts. He doesn't care.

the poster known as J keeps demonstrating the ravages of diarrhea of the mouth and constipation of the brain.--drive on son, you are doing youself proud--I know you are a gym rat that benches 450 and can meet anyone mano a mano on the internet--good stuff--definitely a stud. I am impressed.

This whole kerfluffle makes the Alger Hiss trial looke like kindergarten--this will give you folks in wisconsin things to talk about for the rest of your lives--and at the end of the day--no one cares outside of madison.

I love that. I'm not making any effort whatsoever to troll the guy, but he's that mad about this situation. Lying and fury. That's what the left's got these days. That's to be expected, as we're running a little short on money for nonsense government, which is the real issue behind all this nonsense.

Hey, the guy is still pretending he has never seen any evidence he's wrong! I guess you could say I'm psychic for predicting that, except he's done it several times before.

About the word charged, I found this in the police report: Justice Roggensack said she believes what provoked Justice Prosser was that Bradley "walk with rapiditiy"towards Prosser

Justice Roggensak also said "his thumbs were in contact with the front of her neck, thus explaining where those missing thumbs that Prosser couldn't remember were-- on the front of her neck!

Justice Ziegler recalled that as Justice Bradley was walking towards Justice Prosser, she heard her say some comment to the effect of " get out of my office."Everyone except Prosser seems to remember this. He says he can't "recollect" her saying this.

Prosser claims he has no anger issues, but Justice Crooks said he noted Justice Prosser "loses his cool repeatedly."

Prosser claims he was looking up at her fits, and down at her eyes in the same instant--- I guess that is due to his six inch advantage. He admits that she didn't touch him and somehow was able to bring herself up short after "charging him." Maybe Bradley has a place on our basketball team?

As I keep saying the physical descriptions and actions just do not add up. I guess the issue is how much pressure has to be exerted by the fingers on the side of the neck, and the thumbs on the front of the neck before this "defensive" move is called a chokehold. No one seems able to answer that.

-- Everyone except Prosser seems to remember this. --The reports are there for others to read. What happens with your false assertions is you show yourself to be dishonest. Roggensack doesn't recall it. There are other incident reports that don't mention Bradley ordering Prosser out, as well.-- I guess the issue is how much pressure has to be exerted by the fingers on the side of the neck, and the thumbs on the front of the neck before this "defensive" move is called a chokehold. No one seems able to answer that. --None of the eyewitnesses have any trouble concluding there was no choking. So the "issue" as you prefer to frame it is moot in this case.

-- no need for me to lie --Of course not. But you did."Everyone except Prosser seems to remember this." FALSEAnybody who is interested enough can read the police reports for themselves. They can compare your excerpting practices with those of others, in particular Althouse.Your persistent attempts the frame the case as a choking case also fail (and show your dishonest nature), because NONE of the eyewitnesses describe any pressure to Bradley's neck, not even Bradley does.

R-V wants us to think that Bradley is somehow better than that shitbag who mauled AA while she was filming a demonstration. But she ain't. She, like the vast majority of the Madison "protesters", is a joke of a human being. That she's a Judge makes a joke of all of us.